I don't like youtube (it absorbs to much time), so I looked it up online for an article. Basically, maybe Australia doesn't have the mass shootings. BUT, what about other violence? The cure for mass shootings is more individuals who carry guns, to stop the shootings before they make progress. The old lady can't defend herself against the big guy with the club (or vegetable peeler), if she doesn't have a gun.

And no, there aren't enough police to be everywhere.

Look a little closer at the example set by Australia. It wasn't just mass shootings, it was all about other violence.

The cure isn't more guns and more deaths. It's fewer guns and less of a "gun mentality". It's the mind set that a gun is the answer to everything that results in high levels of violence. Remove the mind set, and the violence decreases.

"You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you’re not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults and then used solely for shooting grouse. If you’re not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you’re not ready to handle a gun, let alone shoot grouse."

Yeah, you're right. That's what I get for being in a hurry and simplifying. They aren't exempt. They just get a special rebate to cover the thing. Same difference, Slobodan, and the people who wrote that piece know it as well as you and I do. A whole lot of people are pissed off about that situation. They're also pissed about the fact that businesses are exempt for a year from the mandate while they, as individuals, aren't. Maybe that liberal rag can try to explain that one away too.

One thing about the NYT, Eric, is that it's dependable. You always know what it's going to say on any political subject.

I'm not any happier with Cruz than Gail Collins is, but the idea that Republicans have lost track of the problem of entitlements just won't hold water. There's a very interesting article in this morning's WSJ by Niall Ferguson, that lays bare the real size of the coming entitlement catastrophe. It's a lot hairier than anybody seems to realize, and I suspect you're going to see a whole lot of Republican concern about entitlements in the coming bash over the debt limit, which is where the real war's going to be fought. As of now, as near as I can tell, having gotten past the idea that there's some way the House can shut down Obamacare on its own, even the Tea Partiers are concentrating on the two things I rattled Slobodan's chain about: congressional privilege and the personal mandate. And, since I don't get my "news" from TV or the NYT, I'm seeing more and more people unhappy that Obama won't even discuss those things. It's gonna cost him, big time.

According to a number of sources, including our congressional representative, the House would easily vote to continue gov't funding without any conditions if only they could vote. But, Boehner won't call a vote. How exactly is this majority rule? How do a few dozen tea party nincompoops hold the entire country hostage in defiance of the will of the House and the people?

I just talked with a climber who didn't get off El Cap until today. He said that he was not ticketed because they started up before the closure.

As far as who would be able to help them if they were in a life / death situation: First many climbers are quite resourceful and able to rescue themselves - unless they can't. What about climbers who bivy on 3000 foot + faces on Baffin Island? Don screw up!Now there are essential and non essential employees. Some of these essential workers are members of Yosemite Search and Rescue. Granted they are operating on a shoe string. All they need to do is make a call to some military base in the central valley to get a rescue going. The military is not shut down and they have some fine pilots.

Look a little closer at the example set by Australia. It wasn't just mass shootings, it was all about other violence.

The cure isn't more guns and more deaths. It's fewer guns and less of a "gun mentality". It's the mind set that a gun is the answer to everything that results in high levels of violence. Remove the mind set, and the violence decreases.

Well, Russ, it has nothing to do with Huffington, just with Jimmy Kimmel and average Americans on the street.

Believe it or not, no human is perfect. I guess that means we won't have a perfect world either.

We still don't have a way for an old lady to defend herself without a gun against a strong hunk of muscle. Neither do we have a way to stop lies in our news and government. But we can use guns to stop mass shootings, minor violence, and much more. Guns are for stopping those who do not listen to the law already, but not a method for skipping the court system (if possible).

According to a number of sources, including our congressional representative, the House would easily vote to continue gov't funding without any conditions if only they could vote. But, Boehner won't call a vote. How exactly is this majority rule? How do a few dozen tea party nincompoops hold the entire country hostage in defiance of the will of the House and the people?

Why would Boehner call a vote, Peter, when he knows Harry Reid won't allow a vote on any reasonable bill the House comes up with? The only way this is going to get back under control is if the Pres, the Dem leaders, and the Republican leaders sit down and thrash out a compromise. But neither the Pres nor Harry is willing to do that.

Slobodan, all I can do is quote the duke: "If you believe that, madam, you will believe anything."

Russ, the the only reasonable interpretation of your position is that you believe that Huffington hired Jimmy Kimmel to do that video AND hired paid actors to pose as "average Americans" in the said video. Is that what you are suggesting?